Orissa High Court
Nihar Ranjan Swain vs State Of Odisha And Another .... ... on 6 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.4437 of 2024
Nihar Ranjan Swain .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Sourav Das, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Udit Ranjan Jena, AGA
Ms. Anwesha Mishra, Advocate for O.P. No.2
CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 06.02.2025
03. 1. Heard.
2. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the F.I.R. dated
05.11.2024 in Mangalabag P.S. Case No.288 of 2024 came to be
registered against the petitioner for the alleged commission of the
offences under Sections 126(2)/74/78/296/351(4)/351(3) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
3. On 05.11.2024, the informant/opposite party No.2 being
the father of the victim girl lodged a written report before the I.I.C.,
Mangalabag P.S. alleging therein that on 04.11.2024, the petitioner
entered the college campus and threatened his daughter. He also
assaulted her by throwing her phone, when his daughter attempted
to call for help. It is alleged that the petitioner along with an
accomplice followed the informants' daughter to the bus stop and
threatened to morph her photos, if she narrated this incident to
anyone. She has also received several phone calls and text messages
from unknown numbers, which were used by the petitioner to
threaten her. Hence, the F.I.R.
4. The investigation in the present case is still going on. The
petitioner was arrested and he applied for grant of regular bail
before the learned J.M.F.C. (City), Cuttack. The learned trial Court
vide order dated 07.11.2024 allowed the prayer and enlarged the
petitioner on bail. At that stage, the informant/opposite party No.2
had filed an affidavit inter alia stating that he has misconstrued the
entire sequence of event and had filed the F.I.R. By relying upon
the said statement of the informant, the petitioner was enlarged on
bail.
5. When the matter stood thus, the petitioner has filed the
present petition seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceeding
on the ground of settlement.
6. The petitioner and the opposite party No.2 are present in
the Court through virtual mode and being represented and identified
by their respective counsels. They have also filed self-attested
copies of their Aadhaar Cards to establish their identity, which are
taken on record.
7. The petitioner and the opposite party No.2 have filed joint
affidavit dated 05.02.2025 inter alia stating as under:-
<2. That the present CRLMC No.4437/2024 for
quashing of the entire criminal proceedings
against the present petitioner.
3. That the present petitioner was arrested by the
investigating authorities on dtd. 06.11.2024 and
forwarded to the Court of Learned JMFC City,
Cuttack who was pleased to release the present
petitioner on bail on dtd 07.11.2024 on the
strength of a compromise affidavit filed by the
informant wherein a certain conditions were
imposed on the petitioner violating which the bail
granted to the petitioner would stand cancelled.
4. That during the pendency of this CRLMC
Application, the investigation has forwarded but
no chargesheet has been submitted.
5. That the present petitioner has abided by all the
conditions enumerated under the compromise
affidavit presented before the Learned Court of
JMFC City, Cuttack and both parties have
amicably settled in the meanwhile.
6. That the present petitioner and the Opposite
Party No.2/Informant owing to the amicable
settlement between them do not intend to proceed
with the criminal proceedings.
7. That the present petitioner never had any
intention to cause trouble or commit any of the
offences alleged to the Opposite Party
No.2/Informant's daughter.=
8. On query from the Court, the opposite party No.2 has
stated that due to misunderstanding, he had filed the present case
against the petitioner. Now, he has settled the dispute with the
petitioner. Hence, he has no other grievance against the present
petitioner. He joins with the petitioner praying for quashing of the
entire criminal prosecution initiated by him against the petitioner.
9. Mr. Jena, learned Additional Government Advocate for the
State submits that the informant/opposite party No.2 at two
different stages have reiterated his stand that the F.I.R. was
registered out of misunderstanding and he has no grievance left
against the petitioner. Since the parties have settled their disputes,
this Court may give indulgence in the present matter as there is no
legal impediment.
10. Regard being had to the fact that the parties have settled
their dispute and keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and
another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 and B.S. Joshi & others vs.
State of Haryana & another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, I am of
the considered view that subjecting the petitioners to the rigors of
the trial would be a futile exercise. Therefore, the petition deserves
merit.
11. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in connection with
G.R. Case No.807 of 2024 arising out of Mangalabag P.S. Case
No.288 of 2024 pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C. City,
Cuttack and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua
the petitioner are quashed.
12. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Swarna
Location: High Court of Orissa
